jerdge

If the message said "same network" (=same IP) it was most likely the same network indeed: it's extremely unlikely that there was a mistake when logging your IPs. If you believe that you shouldn't share the same IP you have to check the network(s) you're using: that's the side where the mistake happened. CyberNations is basically the wrong place where to come and look for a solution. Also: the CyberNations staff can't know if two accounts on the same network result from an innocent mistake, or they're an attempt to cheat. This is the reason the "no same network" rule is in place.

As was already pointed out your best option is to work for that change. In the meanwhile, the earliest the newcomers realize that this is a tough environment, the better for their "health" (both bits and sanity). I 100% endorse your motives, but no "appeal to civility" worked for anything this far, and I don't see in yours any exceptional quality that makes it likely that you will succeed in obtaining something. Good luck, though.

This deal has been completed. Thank you for reading it.

ASPECT[1] Gaelan 3M offer: 100 Tech for 3,000,000 In this framework Gaela sells two 50 Tech packs for 3,000,000. Conditions are: Buyer in-game PMs jerdge of Gaela, expressly accepting the conditions hereby set; a PM in this thread would also be courtesy; Buyer waits for confirmation of the Deal (confirmation will arrive via in-game PM from Gaela); Buyer sends 3,000,000 to Krugaria (NOT to Gaela!); Gaela sends 50 Tech to the buyer in 0 to 1 day[2][3]; Gaela sends other 50 Tech after other 10 days[3]. Notes: [1] "AHEAD Shop Project (Efficiently Conveying Tech)". [2] Depending on the moment your PM is received and your payment is confirmed (accepted). [3] Small delays may happen (for Real Life problems, like Internet down etc.) and both parties will accept them with no problems; if any Tech deliver is delayed beyond 1-2 days, the buyer will be eligible for reparations (to be agreed upon, generally an extra discounted deliver); no reparations will ever be due to the seller, should the buyer delay her/his payment for any reason (though the delivers will be delayed as well, and the seller reserves the right to recede from the agreement).

I like the choice of colours, though the yellow hasn't much contrast with white, and the red could have been more brilliant. I believe that choosing the blue cross or the castle alone as central symbol would make it more simple and immediate, but still distinctive. Edit: like the following.

Micheal Malone, I like the general idea but the globe is too "confused". It may look better if it had a background of its own (not the black-yellow one) and/or had less graphics in it. Numa Maximus, nice artwork, the first better than the second, but anyway not "flags" (As Cirrus pointed out).

While I agree with you that that isn't a good flag, I think that his point was to show that detailed graphics and many colours can be compatible with noticeability at tiny proportions. He called that flag "a quick mockup" and his point was only "simplicity is not key". While I don't agree with his theory (and grammar), your reply didn't address the point behind that example, Professor Chaos. My .02 on topic: a "flag" can't be defined as "whatever recognizable graphics in a rectangular shape". Thus Olreich's theory, though fascinating, is wrong.

Since I didn't provide any description of mild insults, you can't be right.

(First of all, sorry if this is the wrong forum: I did my best to locate the correct one. I would have posted in "Moderation", but it said it was "for player discussion with moderators regarding game policy only", and this is about the board.) I have recently noticed that the use of some "mild" language / namecalling is at a certain extent common in AP, and not completely uncommon in OWF. I obviously don't know about the sanctions the Mods apply to the non-reported namecalling; in several instances the reports against namecalling were considered useful by the Mods, but I in a few cases the reporting individuals were told that there was no namecalling, or it wasn't "that" bad (to warrant an action against it). At this point I realized that I don't know exactly what is the correct interpretation of the rule I quoted above. From it I could work out: It would be preferable to never use mild expletives. The use of mild expletives should anyway be extremely limited. Always. even in the RP forums. The OOC use of mild expletives is forbidden and it is a warnable offence. Harsh expletives are always forbidden and using them grants (at least) a warn. Namecalling "is not an acceptable behavior on this forum no matter if it is IC/OOC", therefore even the IC use of them may result in a warn (though this is not granted, due to Rule 2). I have to say that Rule 2 and 5 seem at some extent conflicting to me. I don't want to cite/link/quote specific cases: this is not an "appeal" - or I would have PM-ed SoE - and I want to avoid "flame-wars". While encouraging the readers to not try to locate the specific reports I took my examples from, I'd have said that all of the following were controversial and should have lead to something (not necessarily a warn): Calling people "retards" in the OWF (Rules 3 and 5). Suggesting in the OWF that someone is an "idiot" (even if making a hypotetical like "what idiot would do what you do?"). Making an OOC post in an IC forum and calling people "idiots" in that post (Rules 1, 2, 3 and 5). Calling someone "fool" (or in any other "mild" way) in the OWF (Rules 3 and 5). I want to specify that these "examples" must be imagined in their context, that is that of aggressive and hostile posts. I'm not saying that things like this should be a problem: "Hey jerdge you really look like a fool with that flag on your avatar lol " Rather, the following would probably be a problem (if OOC): "Your arguments are flawed, you are a joke, and you show you are a huge fool every time you open your mouth. I'd be happy not to have to read you anymore." For example, this is a good example of an aggressive post that doesn't break the forums rules because it's in an IC area, and would have broken them, was it OOC. I would be happy if a (CIVIL!) discussion could be started about this, and also if the Mods can help me/us to understand the line between legit and non-legit "namecalling". I finally would be happy if the posters would restrain from discussing what in their opinion is an acceptable behaviour on the forums: I'd love to discuss the implications of the rule I quoted over there, not the ("infinite") possible opinions we can have over the issue of namecalling.

^^^ Sad but necessary question.

Welcome in CyberNations! Since there are many and many different Alliances, we need to know more about you, to help you choose. What do you expect from your experience among the other Nations? Fights? Economic challenges? Political activity? Diplomacy? Obscure conspirations? (Etc.) On a completely OOC note: Magister Agricolarum Now, if I could only remember the question this was the answer to...

I'm proud enough of my work to want to show here the AHEAD flag, as a good example of a CN flag: It's simple enough, with a few elements that can be easily remembered: the four quadrants, the shield, the dove. The flag symbols and colours are meaningful: Orange because AHEAD is "primarily" an Orange Alliance, and White because other colours are allowed (and widely used); White also because it represents Peace. The four Quadrants were chosen to recall a GPA flag that is used on a site of theirs, and part of the idea of AHEAD was inspired by looking at the GPA; the Shield is for Protection, the Dove is for Peace. Orange and White have an excellent contrast. No lettering on our flag (ok). The flag is distinctive and unlike anything else (in CN or RL). Despite the dove and the curved lines, the flag is still realistic: it could be reproduced in large quantities without being too expensive. Also, the Dove is in canton, because Peace is the primary value of AHEAD.

What is exactly "being allied to" (or even "belonging to"), with regards to ghosts? Scenario: Alliances A, B and C are at war with Alliance D and E. A Nation of Alliance D temporarily changes its Alliance Affiliation to B and then conducts a spy operation against a Nation in A. Then they change their Alliance Affiliation to anything choosing among A, C, D, E or none (or even F, a not involved Alliance). This is done to generate confusion and duck/delay retaliation, in case their spy operation is exposed. Does that Nation get a warning for "spy slot filling"? (Of course, more complex or simple scenarios can be imagined).

This is another point. However, good friend, you messed up with the numbers: DEFCON 1 is highest preparedness, while DEFCON 5 is peace-time status. I think that your point is anyway clear.

Spies' ability to change DEFCON must be disabled before this takes place. If a government can't change DEFCON more than one level per day, how is a spy supposed to be able to do it? Magic? What above about spies, and this. A longer waiting period must be set before this takes effect. All of this is true (good points). However, if DEFCON has to be realistic, let's face that RL DEFCON doesn't affect a Nation's happyness/income (if anything, it's a boost to them, due to the people feeling protected, and due to the increased public expenditure). DEFCON must be made affecting military maintenance costs, rather than Nation's economics, before this change comes in effect. As it is now, this change basically ruins the spy system, the war system, the economic simulation of this game. I voted NO.

You're not wrong, monkey theory. I also think that high tech aircraft require more Tech (and less Infra) than Nukes, but as it is now in game it's too much unbalanced. The fact is, that I mentioned the Blenheim, that is not even a jet, and not the Tu-160: that was done on purpose. I didn't want to fully bring in the requirements for Nukes, but since you mentioned them... I personally believe that the Tech requirements should be raised (to somewhere around 150-200) and a huge Infrastructure level should be required also. The 5% requirement doesn't make much sense, instead. And/or, the airplanes Tech requirements may be lowered a bit, but shall not be brought back to what they were before the update (that were surely too low). One way or the other, Nukes less advanced than the Blenheim = bad.

I'm unsure about the tech level that should be needed for each type of aircraft. However, when you need more tech to build a Bristol Blenheim than what you need to build a Nuclear weapon, something is wrong. (I know that nobody with 75 Tech has really the opportunity to buy Nukes, however... It still sounds wrong.)

Thanks for your replies. The problem is when I need to contact somebody that is on esper...

Hello! I can't attach at esper. My IP is banned, and it has been banned before I ever attached to esper. Note that I'm supposed to have a dynamic IP, but for some reason my ISP (almost?) always assigns me the same IP (banned on esper.net). After having used the channel esper.net provides to handle this situation, I found that my IP is banned by SORBS. The reason is that somebody had a virus, and they sent out spam emails, from said IP. Of course, I'm in no way linked to that spam (my PC is clean from that, and was anyway off at the date/time the spam occurred). Trying to have the IP un-banned at SORBS didn't work, even if they are fully aware that it's a dynamic IP (in fact, they routinely ban dynamic IPs, I guess because the people can always bypass the ban "using their ISP e-mail smtp server..."). Contacting esper.net about it didn't work either (they simply ignored me). I really don't understand where's the point in banning from IRC dynamic IPs, for spam e-mail. It just randomly hits innocent people, it has nothing to do with IRC misconduct, and has nothing to do with effectively detering/stopping spam (on e-mail or elsewhere). Anyway, believing this doesn't help me. Any idea, anybody? (Note also that my IRC is fine on synirc and coldfront).

I believe you can deploy all the soldiers that are above 20% of your Citizens count without going into Anarchy. In your case, you have 16,110 citizens, so you need at least 3,222 soldiers (look at the "efficiency" value, the one in brackets). Considering that you have 12,888 (46,100) soldiers, I believe you can deploy (46,000) - (3,222) ~ 42,000 (efficiency), that should mean about 11,740 "real" soldiers. That is, over 90% of the soldiers you currently have.

I believe this is correct. Q 41 is outdated and it should be removed.

I have only recently discovered about "jumps". Anyway, I found that - at least in my case - raising from 999.99 to 1,000.00 does not significantly change Infrastructure cost or upkeep. While raising from 1,000.00 to 1,000.01 does. Figures I have: Infrastructure cost at 999.99: ~10,600 per level Infrastructure upkeep at 999.99: 84.19 per level Infrastructure cost at 1,000.00: ~10,600 per level Infrastructure upkeep at 1,000.00: 84.19 per level Infrastructure cost at 1,000.01: ~13,200 per level Infrastructure upkeep at 1,000.01: 99.50 per level This explains why I was (and am) at 1,000.00, rather than anything else.

I've just discovered that 1000.00 Infrastructure (along with 100+ Tech) are not enough to buy level 9 aircraft. You need at least 1000.01 Infra. I didn't check for the other aircraft levels, but I imagine it's just the same. The ingame documentation says that 100 Tech and 1000 Infra are needed to buy level 9 aircrafts. Either the documentation is faulty, or the game has a bug.